W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2014

Minutes: HTML A11Y TF Teleconference, 27 February 2014

From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:24:18 -0500
Message-ID: <530F74C2.60201@w3.org>
To: HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>

The minutes for the HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 27 February 2014 are available in HTML and plain text below:




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

              HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

27 Feb 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-irc


          Adrian_Roselli, David_MacDonald, chaals, janina, PaulC,
          Mark_Sadecki, Leonie, Judy, Cynthia_Shelly, Jatinder,
          Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Suzanne_Taylor, Plh


          MarkS, chaals


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]longdesc update
         2. [5]Canvas update
         3. [6]HTML WG meeting, 8/9 April
         4. [7]Bug Triage
         5. [8]DOM report from PF
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 27 February 2014

   <MarkS> scribe: MarkS

longdesc update

   CM: chaals and mark are working on exit criteria, will be
   sharing with the group for consensus soon.

   <chaals> MS: PaulC you asked for a timing update…

   <chaals> PC: Yes, especially wrt the face to face meeting.

   <chaals> … trying to figure our load on Director's calls

   <chaals> MS: Might take 2-3 weeks to get WG stuff tied up (most
   particularly getting Exit Criteria approved).

   <chaals> … so best case we do it before f2f. Or we could let if
   go after f2f.

   CMN: we will keep Paul informed to avoid any timeline conflicts

   <chaals> scribe: chaals

Canvas update

   MS: Had a meeting on Monday. Discussed possible timelines,

   … agreement that we should get the accessibility problem done
   before publishing level 1, so should get Hit regions done.

   … 2 possible ways. One is to bring back what we minimally need
   for an accessible canvas, other is to bring back all of
   hitregions, put things at risk and see how much we get done.

   … Group is starting to consider bringing all of hit regions as
   the better approach.

   …Mozilla has now landed basic hitregions that inform
   accessibility API - which is exactly what we wanted.

   … Others have asked for hit testing, which would also benefit

   RS: Think patched firefox nightly has hit testing working.

   JMann: Seems we were trying to get input from google/mozilla on
   what we should do here.

   … Good news, Ric implemented it in firefox - great effort. Bad
   news is that there is a lot of feedback from google that needs
   to be addressed. E.g. hitregions doesn't do hit testing.

   … We want to implement the full feature not just a slice.

   … When we asked Domenic for a timeline he said months not
   weeks, and it isn't clear if this is minimal or full

   … So, what is the cost of doing it testing - can it be done in
   L1, without path?

   <MarkS> scribe: MarkS

   PC: I attended monday's meeting. There was talk of bringing all
   of Hit Regions back in and marking it at risk.
   ... I suggested the group try to find out what implementers are

   <janina> +1 to PC

   PC: reports confirm that we need to be patient and figure out
   what needs to be put back in to L1

   RS: I believe Mozilla has hit testing in their Nightly
   ... we do need to resolve what we need in the spec

   CN: I agree with Paul, we need to decide what goes back into
   the spec. Sounds like progress is being made. Hopefully we'll
   have a resolution soon.

   JMann: I think its important to get Google on board and figure
   out what they want to ship

   <chaals> scribe: chaals

   MS: Based on Google's email I heard something different. They
   aren't that concerned by the spec. Domenic seemed to suggest a
   couple of weeks' work, but that they have other higher

   … sounded like they would implement everything.

   <MarkS> scribe: MarkS

   <scribe> scribe: MarkS

   RS: there was discussion about where these conversations take
   place. Right now, of critical importance is what elements can
   be used as fallback content

   CM: Our task is to work on HTML stuff in the W3C. It sounds
   like there is work to do, some hurdles, but the group is making
   progress, and don't have a particular issue they need the full
   TF to help resolve at this stage.

   JMann: Is dominic referring to everything in the spec? i worry
   if they want to do all of it. sounds like feature creep.
   especially regarding the path object.
   ... i think if we put everything in, we will run into timing

   JB: Be great to get this back on a good course.

   JS: I think all of us want to do it all. We have to worry about
   publishing a spec. The specificity we need from Dominic is what
   order we would like these done in.

HTML WG meeting, 8/9 April

   CM: HTML WG is meeting at eBay in San Jose April 8-9. Need to
   register if you want to attend

   <chaals> [10]face to face meeting wiki page

     [10] https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda

   PC: The wiki page is very extensive. A lot of agenda ideas
   there. We should consider using this F2F to work through
   ... all the TF work is up for discussion at the F2F
   ... Please feel free to edit the wiki page for the F2F

   <paulc> See
   pics for draft agenda topics

     [11] https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda#Potential_Topics


     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0064.html

   b/0064.html Interest in attending F2F

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0064.html

Bug Triage

   LW: made very good progress over the past few weeks.
   ... there are a lot of media related bugs. be great if the
   media sub team could get back in action
   ... Mark sent around an email

   <chaals> scribe: chaals

   MS: Paul we've been closing bugs. Some are not CR-critical but
   would like to consider in 5.1

   … Previously you mentioned closing old bugs and opening new
   ones for 5.1 as there was an issue of bringing all the history.

   … we have been finding the history to often be relevant, so we
   wonder if you are OK with reassigning bugs to 5.1 component.

   <scribe> scribe: Marks

   <scribe> scribe: chaals

   PC: You are asking to reopen these bugs that were on an old

   MS/LW: Yes

   <MarkS> PC: If you reopen it from an old component, how do you
   bring it to the attention of the editors.

   PC: So how would it get drawn to attention of 5.1 editors? You
   propose to change the component, right?

   LW: Yep.

   PC: How many bugs?

   MS: Maybe a dozen.

   PC: I'm flexible. Please do this very transparently if it is
   what you are doing. Give people an opportunity to see what you
   are doing. Don't just quietly change the component - nobody
   will notice

   <MarkS> PC: Suggest its done transparently, so that everyone
   knows what is going on. Changing the component is not very

   LW: Will it be enough to include a comment in the bug e.g.
   "mass-moved to…"

   PC: I don't think this is the same as Mike's example

   PLH: Don't think we want the HTML 51 editors to work on those
   bugs yet.

   … would be good to clarify to them what we expect them to do.

   LW: Responsibility is clearly on the TF to provide rationale
   for changing the status…

   PLH: OK. So until we have that info don't reopen the bugs.

   PC: Agree.

   … I presumed you had the rationale before you were doing that.
   I suggest working on them in the TF first.

   …at that time changing the coponent makes sense

   <MarkS> scribe: MarkS

   CN: Does that cause trouble for the Bug Triage team? Should
   they be moved to the a11y component?
   ... component is better than a keyword

   PC: I'm not convinced that moving bugs through components is
   what we want.

   CN: We're saying these are not in HTML5 anymore, they are not
   ready for HTML5.1 so lets move them to a11y component until the
   TF is in agreement what they want to do with the bug.

   CS: What about putting them in 5.1 and assigning them to a
   member of the TF

   CM: Is this something that the bug triage could take directly
   to editors of html?

   LW: yes

   <chaals> ACTION: Leonie to figure out how to sort out this
   process [recorded in

   PC: there is a component HTML a11y TF.
   ... last time we talked about this, we said we wouldn't use it.

   CM: This is the use case we intended it to be used for.

   -> [15]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13434 Bug
   13434 - Media element section does not state that tracks are to
   be synchronized with video

     [15] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13434

   <chaals> scribe: chaals

   MS: We thought this is editorial...

   DM: Is there any way of misinterpreting this?

   MS: That was our concern

   JS: There is a use case for non-sychronisation, e.g. when yu
   are speed-reading a transcript.

   DM: Do we want to require it to be synched?

   LW: A transcript would be the non-time-dependent component.

   <paulc> To LW: See [16]http://tinyurl.com/jvo4sq8 which
   indicates there are 4 bugs in the HTML A11Y TF component. I
   expected it to be empty.

     [16] http://tinyurl.com/jvo4sq8

   JS: We had a proposal for synchronized timescript. Didn't get

   LW: Isn't that captions?

   CS: There was a discussion 2-3 years ago about using track for
   transcripts, but was knocked back 2-3 years ago.

   LW: Question from Bug triage is whether the bug is an editorial
   change request

   JS: I think it is implicit that there is a use case for
   synchronization, but does requiring that break the other use
   case of just reading the track?

   DM: Is there a mechanism to grab it?

   JS: It is a user agent question - and I think part of what
   Apple wanted to achieve. THey thought it was a mainstream
   requirement for that use case.

   … e.g. enable highlighting the link to it

   DM: If you have no timing there isn't captioning.

   <MarkS> scribe: MarkS

   CM: UA guidelines state that you should be able to get at that
   text, not HTML's job to do that.
   ... I'm not convinced we have an issue to resolve here.

   <janina> +1 to cn

   -> [17]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13435 Bug
   13435 - Editorial changes to The Video element (3 of 5)

     [17] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13435

   <chaals> ACTION: LW to raise bug 13434 to the TF by email
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Raise bug 13434 to the tf by
   email [on Léonie Watson - due 2014-03-06].

   <chaals> scribe: chaals

   MS: If you pause on an unrendered frame, the caption rendered
   should be that which covers the frame rendered (last available

   … editor thinks it is already required, we didn't think so. Do
   we want to open the bug on 5.1 or accept it as done and close

   CMN: If there is a proposal to clarify in the text it would
   make sense to propose, but otherwise we are just asking the
   HTML editorial group to change their collective mind.

   MS: There is a proposal in the bug

   <MarkS> scribe: MarkS

   <chaals> ACTION: LW to raise bug 13435 to TF in email [recorded

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Raise bug 13435 to tf in email
   [on Léonie Watson - due 2014-03-06].

DOM report from PF

   <chaals> scribe: Marks

   CS: ARIA WG has been discussing how to make it easier to handle
   API mappings.
   ... In ARIA we decided to do a core document, then to do
   technology specific ones for HTML and SVG
   ... for HTML seems to be the same one for HTML API map doc
   ... for SVG, Rick was going to be the editor for that. makes
   sense for these to be owned by the group responsible for the
   ... wondering how HTML feels about this
   ... and we need an editor

   JB: I'm interested in why the original work stalled. Concerned
   about potential scope reduction. The work is important. Have
   you considered adding other editors and keeping the same scope?
   ... before this goes to the WG, I think we need more discussion
   on this in the TF. I am concerned about scope reduction.

   CS: this was proposed by Rich. I can have them speak more to
   ... all the same mappings would be there. instead of separate

   PC: Just wanted to remind Janina that PF would discuss this and
   report back. Seems like Cynthia is taking this to TF to bring
   to WG. Can cynthia write this up and share it with the TF for
   review for next week.

   JS: Might be too early to discuss this. Michael has asked we
   wait until after 1.0 is out. There are a few more details we
   need to iron out first.
   ... the write-up should get consensus in PF and in WAI CG
   before we bring this through the TF and the WG.

   CS: I was using this as an opportunity to get some feedback for
   the write-up.

   <David_> take it up next week?

   CS: I want to talk about those next steps and recruit staff.

   <chaals> [adjourned]

   <chaals> [DOM report will be on next week's agenda, and I hope
   Janina will provide an email today of what she wanted to say]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Leonie to figure out how to sort out this process
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: LW to raise bug 13434 to the TF by email
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: LW to raise bug 13435 to TF in email [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([24]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-02-27 17:22:45 $

     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:24:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:37 UTC